Gard News 210

Published on July 2016 | Categories: Types, Magazines/Newspapers | Downloads: 98 | Comments: 0 | Views: 1095
of 28
Download PDF   Embed   Report

P&I Club magazine

Comments

Content

GARDNEWS

ISSUE 210 May/July 2013

“ Paper loss” claims in Tunisia and Algeria PAGE 4 The ERIKA – The Cour de Cassation decision PAGE 18 The silent sentinels – Increased use of remote marine pollution sensors PAGE 20

Building critical mass

Claes Isacson Chief Executive Officer

2
As always, the first quarter of 2013 has been a hive of activity – including the P&I renewal and the end of our financial year. We have also seen the continuation of a number of themes across the marine insurance markets as a whole. Although 2012 did see some growth in world trade, and a small increase in seaborne trade of around four per cent across all vessel sectors, it is still realistic to expect that 2013 will be another tough year for the shipping industry. This, combined with the state of the economy at large, is very much driving buyers’ behaviour in the market. concluding the ninth consecutive P&I renewal with a positive tonnage development. Over the last 12 months, tonnage has grown by 7.3 per cent and now totals 174.4 million GT. This has come both from a number of high quality owners moving vessels to Gard for the first time, as well as existing Members moving more of their fleet to the Club. Strong results were achieved in Scandinavia and Asia, as well as in the German market. However, it is not all about price in every case. We have heard from both brokers and buyers that financial security is important – it is about predictability, a healthy balance sheet and having the breadth and depth to offer critical mass. Also our reputation for service and promptness with documentation worked in our favour – especially as many renewals were left until late in an effort to secure the best deal possible. insurance operations performed well, with a combined ratio (on an ETC basis) across the group of 101 per cent and a surplus after tax of USD 99 million.

Creating seamless coverage
In March we introduced the latest product to our range – a property policy to cover damage to or loss of containers – on and off the ship (featured on page 17 of this issue of Gard News). Since we provide P&I and /or marine insurance to more than half of the world’s container fleet, extending our portfolio to cover the containers themselves was a natural next step. Liner operators take responsibility for the overall transport cost, time, delivery detail and quality of their clients’ transport chains. The result is that they are increasingly exposed to a wide range of risks in their daily operations, in connection with the transportation, storage and handling of cargo. Our ability to offer seamless coverage is a strong proposition.

“It is widely acknowledged that, during the 2013 renewal, there was more movement of Members and tonnage between Clubs than has been seen for some time.”
Owners are undoubtedly looking to save money and will move insurance providers if that helps them to do so. They are being aided by the fact that it is a very competitive market – particularly in northern Europe and Scandinavia. The mutual market in particular is still seeing under-pricing on newbuildings and, despite a year of very significant claims, marine capacity has not reduced. It is widely acknowledged that, during the 2013 renewal, there was more movement of Members and tonnage between Clubs than has been seen for some time. The 2013 P&I renewal has been a successful one for Gard in spite of these market conditions. The Club’s performance in the mutual market was particularly strong, with an increase of four million GT –

Building on sound foundations
The claims environment across the market has been difficult, with rising attritional claims as well as a very substantial escalation in the cost of large casualty incidents. The impact of those claims has been thrown into very clear focus by the grounding of the RENA and subsequent wreck removal operation, and the COSTA CONCORDIA – which has led to the largest and most expensive wreck removal operation ever undertaken. In addition, the ongoing low interest rate environment means that the investment market is also tough. So, with challenges across underwriting, claims and investments, we are pleased that the 2012 financial year delivered positive results, giving our Members and clients reassurance that we have built a solid and resilient business over the past decade. Our

“Our core purpose remains constant – to help our Members and clients in the marine industries to manage risk and its consequences.”
Our core purpose remains constant – to help our Members and clients in the marine industries to manage risk and its consequences. Constant innovation around our product offering as well as having the depth of financial strength and breadth of industry expertise, are key components in helping us to deliver that strategy. 

Gard News May/July 2013

In this issue:

2 4 8 10 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 24 24

Message from the Chief Executive Officer – Building critical mass “Paper loss” claims in Tunisia and Algeria Fines continue to take their toll UK Hydrographic Office’s ECDIS workshops Limitation of liability in Italy Limitation of liability is upheld by French courts – 22 years on Death and personal injury claims in China – New legislative development Gard’s additional covers – Container and Equipment Cover The ERIKA – The Cour de Cassation decision The Jackson reforms The silent sentinels – Increased use of remote marine pollution sensors Frequently asked questions about US sanctions affecting non-US Members Maximising the chances of survival in cold water Marine propulsion systems Gard P&I Member Circulars and loss prevention updates, winter 2012/13 Gard (North America) moving offices Staff news Changes to trial rules in relation to death and personal injury cases in China. Page 16. Italy gets closer to the LLMC Convention regime. Page 13. Help is at hand for the integration of ECDIS into shipping fleets with the UK Hydrographic Office’s ECDIS workshops. Page 10.

3

and more...

© Gard AS. Gard News is published quarterly by Gard AS, Arendal, Norway. Editorial Committee: Claudia Storvik (Editor), Leif Erik Abrahamsen, Peter Chard, Knut-Morten Finckenhagen, Terje Paulsen, Nick Platt, Geir Sandnes. Production: Claire Osborne. Disclaimer: The information contained in Gard News is provided for general information purposes only. Whilst we have taken every care to ensure the accuracy and quality of the information provided, Gard can accept no responsibility in respect of any loss or damage of any kind whatsoever which may arise from reliance on information contained in Gard News, regardless of whether such information originates from Gard, its correspondents or other contributors.

Gard News welcomes contributions from external authors. Articles must not have been published previously or be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Contributors may submit articles for consideration for publication to [email protected].

4

“Paper loss” claims in Tunisia and Algeria
A control check on claims for shortage of grain cargoes in North Africa.

Recent forecasts of the International Grains Council1 underline problems in the global supply of grains and oilseeds, notably due to dry conditions impacting grain harvests in the northern hemisphere. While these droughts may result in a big contraction in grain cargoes and unprofitable rates for certain carriers, the demand for grain has not dropped, grain prices remain relatively high and vessels keep calling at certain grain ports where they face an increased risk of shortage claims, particularly in some North African countries. Shortages at these ports can be either real (physical losses caused by physical events such as theft, leakage from grabs, etc.) or apparent (“paper losses”, caused by measurement differences, many of which are customary, some of which occur due to poor procedures such as incorrect measurement, calculations, etc.). This article focuses particularly on the latter.

Claim scenario
What type of claim scenario are we looking at? Sadly, it is a very common one. A diligent and cautious bulk carrier owner fixes a vessel to load grain at a South American port, arranges for a draft survey and proper sealing of the hatches. Before the vessel is allowed

port. After a few hours or days, and while the discharge is still under way, allegations of shortage are made by the receivers. Then the whole sad affair starts, with security request, threat of arrest, tense negotiations between the cargo interests and the P&I Club, correspondent and surveyor and ultimately the outcome is a familiar and frustrating one. The fortunate owner will see his vessel sail without delay in exchange for a P&I letter of undertaking (LOU) and will hopefully manage to conclude the claim amicably. Quite often, however, the Club LOU is not accepted and a bank guarantee is demanded. In the worst case scenario, and in an attempt to avoid

“Before the vessel is allowed to sail, the Master is pressured to insert in the bill of lading shore scale figures, which are in excess of the draft survey figures.”
to sail, the Master is pressured to insert in the bill of lading shore scale figures, which are in excess of the draft survey figures. The voyage is then uneventful until the vessel starts discharging cargo at a Tunisian or Algerian

1 Press Release dated 7th December 2012, at www.igc.int/downloads/pr/prigcdec12.pdf.

having to provide a costly bank guarantee, some owners may feel pressured to pay the claim on the spot in order to avoid detention of the vessel, when it appears obvious that the claimant will not agree to negotiate on fair terms. Owners often feel helpless and end up paying for what are probably paper losses when the vessel delivers all the cargo received on board.

and what can he do to avoid a claim in the first place? Algeria has ratified the Hague Rules, but the Rules have never been effectively implemented into domestic law. The Algerian Maritime Code provides that the carrier is liable for loss or damage to cargo from the time it enters into his custody until the time it is delivered to the receiver.2 However, the carrier can be relieved from liability when the loss or damage to the cargo results from inherent vice of the cargo or from the so-called “freinte de route”, a French term referring to the normal loss, minor shrinkage, evaporation or deterioration of certain cargoes while in transit.3 In other words, although silent on the applicable percentage, the Algerian legislation recognises a trade allowance, but unfortunately the courts are not consistent in its application and there is no reference case law clarifying the meaning and application of the “freinte de route” defence.

above will not guarantee the absence of claims, but may nevertheless dissuade receivers from taking advantage and so keep alleged shortages in check. Appointing a court surveyor in addition can be worth considering, especially when receivers refuse to participate in a joint survey and claim an extent of shortage that is obviously outrageous. The shore-side weighing phase can be crucial, as the accuracy of some shore scales may be questionable4 and as an extra precautionary measure the independent surveyor can be instructed to keep the weight tickets and ensure the weights are measured and recorded properly. A tally of the receivers’ trucks at the pier and at the weighing bridge for the purpose of keeping track of all loaded and weighed trucks is also advisable. Of course, the downside of such an extended survey, which may last many days, is that the survey costs greatly increase. Some owners in the trade feel it is better to use the money to pay the claim itself, but the drawback of that approach is that Algerian law may not consider the cargo delivered to the receiver until after shore weighing, which becomes open to abuse. It is a difficult balancing act that is best considered from experience in the trade. Survey instructions can also extend to crosschecking on a daily basis the shore figures and the findings of intermediary draft surveys and investigating any important discrepancy. Drawing the receivers’ attention to any spillage evidenced by pictures and assisting the Master in drafting letters of protest as necessary should also be part of the instructions. Spilled quantities should be

“Owners often feel helpless and end up paying for what are probably paper losses when the vessel delivers all the cargo received on board.”
Can owners expect the situation to change in the near future?

5

Shortage claims status in Algeria
Despite increased frustration among shipowners, reportedly the situation in Algeria regarding paper losses has stabilised and even generally improved to the extent that more and more local importers recognise a trade allowance. Some observers have noted a recent reduction in the number of paper loss claims. However, shortage claims show no sign of disappearing, and occur mainly at the largest Algerian ports of Oran and Béjaïa. They generally concern cargoes of yellow corn, soya bean meal and wheat in bulk from Brazil, Argentina and Black Sea ports. Nevertheless, a trade allowance has been successfully applied to the majority of cases involving grain cargo imported in Algeria. Public companies, including the main local importer of cereals (5 to 6 million tons per year), tend to accept a trade allowance of 0.5 per cent of the total bill of lading figure and normally do not lodge any claim for shortages of less than 0.5 per cent. On the other hand, private companies, often importing grain for animal feed (1.5 to 2 million tons per year), are less flexible, especially in difficult times, when prices for corn and soya bean meal are climbing. As a result, they rarely accept a trade allowance, and do not recognise the value of the vessel’s draft survey. This is the reign and supreme diktat of the sacred port weighbridge scale. In such circumstances, on which basis can a carrier successfully defend a shortage claim

“Shortage claims show no sign of disappearing, and occur mainly at the largest Algerian ports of Oran and Béjaïa.”
Thus, in principle, a diligent carrier, backed by favourable draft surveys and certificates of sealing/unsealing of hatches and empty holds, could have a reasonably good case before an Algerian court based on the applicable law. The truth is, however, that the fear of an uncertain outcome and, most importantly, the reluctance to vest too much time and money in testing the Algerian courts’ willingness to apply the trade allowance may explain the absence to date of any significant judgment confirming the exoneration of the carrier’s liability based on it.

“Algerian law may not consider the cargo delivered to the receiver until after shore weighing, which becomes open to abuse.”
collected and re-loaded on consignees’ trucks, weighed at shore scale and added to final figures as being sound cargo discharged.

Loss prevention in Algeria
Checking the integrity of the hatches’ seals upon arrival at the discharge port is highly recommended, along with appointing an independent surveyor to monitor the discharge operations, perform an initial and final draft survey to be signed jointly by the receivers, and to issue empty holds certificates. Bearing in mind that shortage may result from spillage at discharge due to the use of leaky grabs, possible overloading of trucks and mishandling by stevedores, the

Algerian Maritime Code Article 802. Algerian Maritime Code Article 803 g. 4 This may not be better than +/- 2 per cent and worse if not properly calibrated.
2 3

Shortage claims status in Tunisia
In contrast to the apparent stabilisation/decline in frequency of paper loss claims in Algeria, the rate of occurrence of such claims in Tunisia has developed in the opposite direction. The last few years have witnessed a steady rise of paper loss claims pertaining to bulk cargoes of grain in general and wheat in particular. While the situation is more or less the same at all Tunisian ports, local observers have reported that cargoes originating from Russia, Romania, Ukraine and Argentina are generally more prone to claims than cargoes originating from other countries. One possible reason behind the increasing number of claims may be that the stateowned and single largest grain importer no longer recognises a trade allowance. Contrary to the situation in Algeria, however, trade allowance is accepted by a number of private importers, which are also generally more flexible than their state-run counterpart in terms of handling the aftermath of an alleged short-landing. Rather than requiring a bank guarantee to secure the alleged shortage, these private importers tend to be more pragmatic in terms of finding a solution which is acceptable to all parties. That being said, the probability of a shortage claim being lodged is still high even where the receivers are private companies.

6

Shortage claims show no sign of disappearing.

well as the level of trade allowance to apply, although in practice the general rule for grain cargoes is 0.5 per cent.

Loss prevention at load ports
Certain measures should also be taken at load ports, particularly in more problematic areas, such as Argentina7 and Brazil8 and certain notorious ports, like Constantza in Romania.9 Understanding what is going on at the load port is a good starting point. In some places shippers and/or customs insist on bills of lading and sometimes mate’s receipts being issued based on the shore figures, whilst on the other hand diligent Masters know they have to issue mate’s receipts and bills of lading based on the quantity they reasonably believe to have been loaded on board. It should be remembered that shippers will often have an interest in receiving a bill of lading showing the highest measurement quantity, since that will often be the basis on which payment is made as between seller and buyer. There is great attraction to a shipper to getting paid for a quantity of cargo that has not in fact been shipped.

Loss prevention in Tunisia
Despite the above, the carrier may be relieved from liability if he can show that he, his agents or principals have taken all reasonable steps to avoid any shortage and consequences thereof, and that the shortage is not the result of the carrier’s, his agents’ or principals’ negligence, but is attributable to the nature of the cargo, the length of the voyage, and variations in temperature and humidity. Whether or not the carrier succeeds in showing that the shortage is not caused by negligence but rather results from the trade and cargo as such depends on the evidence available, so measures should be in place to ensure that appropriate precautionary measures are taken and properly documented. Loss prevention measures, such as hatch sealing and surveys, similar to those stated previously for Algeria, equally apply for Tunisia. In addition, it is also recommended to insert in the bill of lading and/or charterparty a clause to the effect that the stevedores are the servants of the shipper or receiver, which is an option offered by the CCM.5 It is also worth trying to insert a minimum of 0.5 per cent trade allowance in these documents, considering that trade allowance can theoretically be used as a defence under the terms of the CCM when supported by sufficient evidence.6

“The last few years have witnessed a steady rise of paper loss claims pertaining to bulk cargoes of grain in general and wheat in particular.”
The diverging approaches to trade allowance adopted by public and private importers echoes the conflicting rules related to liability for the carriage of goods by sea under the Maritime Commercial Code of Tunisia (CCM) and the Hamburg Rules, which have been ratified by Tunisia. Since the CCM recognises a trade allowance and the Hamburg Rules do not, the legal position is far from clear. Notably, Tunisian case law contains some decisions where the CCM trade allowance is recognised and others where trade allowance is not recognised by virtue of application of the Hamburg Rules. In addition, some decisions appear to accept a trade allowance on the basis of a combined application of both regimes. Similar confusion surrounds the application of contractual terms inserted in a charterparty or bill of lading, as

Maritime Commercial Code Article 169. Maritime Commercial Code Article 145. 7 See article “Shore scale measurements in Argentina” in Gard News issue No. 195. Under Argentine law, the cargo receivers are entitled to choose whether to use shore scales or a draft survey to ascertain outturn quantities of import cargoes; for export cargoes the shippers can choose. 8 See article “Cargoes of agricultural products – Short loadings at Paranaguá” in Gard News issue No. 148. 9 See article “Shortage of agricultural products loaded in Romania” in Gard News issue No. 190.
5 6

Sometimes a Master may have no ultimate control over the quantities entered in the bill of lading, for instance if authorisation to sign bills is given to another entity. In this case the Master’s Letter of Authority to the agents must be carefully drafted. Ideally authority to sign mate’s receipts should rest with the Master rather than the agents, and the charterparty should provide that the Master shall only issue, or permit to be issued on his behalf, bills which are in strict conformity with the mate’s receipts.

figure for the bill of lading), especially if the draft survey was performed in a swell.11 As a minimum, precautionary steps at the load port should include a draft survey12 and sealing of hatches with relevant certificates issued. The shippers’ representative should be invited to both surveys and asked to countersign the survey report and certificates. If and when there is a normal discrepancy between shore and ship figures (i.e., within 0.5 per cent) which is not entered in the bill of lading, the Master should at least issue a letter of protest. Bills of lading should include the terms “said to weigh” or “said to be” or “weight, measure, marks, numbers, quality, contents and value unknown”, which at least under English law can mean that the bill of lading is not even prima facie evidence of the quantity stated to have been shipped; the burden of proof being on the cargo claimant to prove the quantity which he says was shipped.

presented, this offers limited protection. The owner must not have been at fault and the loss must not arise from a risk which the owner has agreed to bear. The issuing of an inaccurate bill of lading will therefore make an indemnity claim very difficult.

“Owners should avoid agreeing in the charterparty to issue bills of lading based on shore figures.”
If the charterparty incorporates the Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement, there is some comfort for owners in the fact that shortage claims can be apportioned 50/50 between owners and charterers.13 If owners have a good negotiating position when it comes to agreeing the terms of a charter, they may even be able to negotiate a clause which places full responsibility on charterers for paper shortages, e.g., where the independent draft surveys and empty hold certificates evidence no physical loss of cargo. At least that way it may be possible to push the cost of paper shortage claims down the charter chain to the cargo interests that often create them.

“Shortage claims are often based on a comparison of shore-side shipped and received figures.”
In practice the difficulty starts when shippers wish to insert in the bill of lading figures ascertained by shore scales and these are higher than the figures ascertained by a draft survey. A difference greater than 0.5 per cent (the normal accuracy for a well-conducted draft survey under reasonable prevailing conditions) will increase the risk of a shortage claim at the discharge port, especially since the quantity stated in the bill of lading is likely to be considered under the local law to be binding on the carrier. The shortage claim can then be exacerbated by the application of shore received figures at the discharge port. In essence, therefore, instead of comparing the ship’s loaded and discharged figures, shortage claims are often based on a comparison of shore-side shipped and received figures. The draft survey is often the only way for the carrier to control loaded quantities and, if the difference is greater than 0.5 per cent, mate’s receipts and bills of lading ought to be claused to reflect the draft survey figures and the possible physical shortloading. Doing otherwise may result in P&I cover being prejudiced.10 It seems less common that the ship’s draft survey exceeds the shore figure at loading, but this can happen and a clever shipper will then be happy to receive a bill of lading showing only the ship’s figure. Discrepancies should always be investigated first and if they remain large, i.e., over 0.5 per cent, caution should be exercised. Gard has seen a number of cases of incorrect measurements and/or calculations in respect of draft surveys and a difference of more than 0.5 per cent above the shore figure may well point to the latter being more accurate (and therefore the best

7

“As a minimum, precautionary steps at the load port should include a draft survey and sealing of hatches with relevant certificates issued.”
Ideally, the terms should be typed or hand written on the front of the bill of lading rather than (or in addition to) being printed on the back, but even then owners should be under no illusion that such terms are the answer to avoiding shortage claims in North Africa. They may assist negotiations, but may have questionable legal value in local courts.

Conclusion
Prevention is better than cure, but unfortunately protective measures are unlikely to totally remove the risk of a paper loss claim in Algeria and Tunisia. However, precautionary measures will provide a carrier with ammunition to better defend claims and minimise the exposure as much as possible. When claims do arise, the Club and its correspondents will be on hand to assist as best they can. 

Charterers and the charterparty
It is worth mentioning the relevance of charterers and the charterparty in relation to shortage claims. A trade allowance agreed in the charterparty is unlikely to be binding on a third party bill of lading holder, even if the charterparty terms are incorporated into the bill of lading. Owners should avoid agreeing in the charterparty to issue bills of lading based on shore figures and/or to accept a letter of indemnity in exchange for a bill of lading showing an inaccurate quantity. There is a great risk that the courts will take the view that such letters of indemnity are unenforceable, as they facilitate fraud. Even if the charterparty provides owners with an indemnity for signing bills of lading as
10 Rule 34.1.x excludes “liabilities, costs and expenses arising out of the issue of a Bill of Lading, waybill or other document containing or evidencing the contract of carriage, known by the Member or the master to contain an incorrect description of the cargo or its quantity or its condition”. 11 There are many aspects to a draft survey that can be in error, beyond draft marks being read incorrectly. Errors can occur in the lightweight, constant, deductibles (e.g., for ballast, fuel, etc.), corrections for trim and water density, etc., as well as in the draft calculations themselves. 12 See article “The importance of draft surveys in the defence of claims for shortage of bulk cargoes” in Gard News issue No. 153. 13 See P&I Member Circular No. 07-11, Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 1996 (as amended September 2011).

GARD NEWS ISSUE 210 May/July 2013

Fines continue to take their toll
Following an analysis of fines reported to Gard over a period of five years, Gard News provides an update on statistics and current trends and identifies some of the most problematic jurisdictions.

8

The exposure
On average, approximately 100-120 finesrelated incidents are reported to Gard every year. In the five years analysed, Gard’s exposure in respect of fines-related claims was in the region of USD 31 million, which averages USD six million per policy year.

3. Over or short delivery of cargo, or failure to comply with regulations concerning declaration of goods or documentation of the cargo, provided the Member is insured for cargo liability under Rule 34. This type of fines accounts for 34 per cent of the fines reported to Gard under Rule 47. 4. Smuggling or infringement of customs laws other than in relation to cargo carried on the vessel. These fines account for 20 per cent of the fines reported to Gard under Rule 47. Fines described in 3 and 4 above are referred to as “customs fines” in this article. Unfortunately, customs fines are on the rise, both in terms of the number reported to Gard and the value of the fines imposed. Some national authorities are imposing fines on shipowners for breach of new customs regulations and as a consequence of clerical errors, such as typos or minor errors in the documentation presented by the vessel to the authorities.

Hot spots
During the five-year period analysed, claims have been reported in respect of fines imposed in 70 different countries. In about 30 of these countries, fines were not a regular problem, with only one or two cases reported in each country over the five-year period. In a group of 35 states (which includes many Mediterranean and Black Sea areas), between three and 20 fines have been reported in the five-year period. However, in a few countries a disproportionately large number of claims has been reported, suggesting Members should exercise caution when calling at ports in these areas. The most problematic jurisdictions are listed below.

“Approximately 15 per cent of the fines reported to Gard fall outside the scope of P&I cover.”
It is also interesting to note how these claims fit within the available P&I cover. Approximately 15 per cent of the fines reported to Gard fall outside the scope of P&I cover. Typical examples would be fines imposed due to non-compliance with national and international regulations, such as breach of the SOLAS or MARPOL conventions. Under Gard P&I Rule 47, cover is available for fines imposed by a competent public authority on the Member or upon a third party whom the Member is legally obliged to reimburse (or whom the Member reimburses with the agreement of the Association) in respect of: 1. Breach of immigration laws or regulations, typically wrongful declarations in respect of crew members. These fines account for 15 per cent of the fines reported to Gard under Rule 47. 2. Accidental escape or discharge of oil or any other substance, or the threat thereof, provided the Member is insured for pollution liability under Rule 38. These fines account for 16 per cent of the fines reported to Gard under Rule 47.

Argentina
Argentina is undoubtedly the jurisdiction where shipowners are most exposed to customs fines. Argentina alone accounts for

Fines related to cargo 15% 34 % 20% Breach of Immigration law/ regulations Fines for pollution Smuggling/infringement of custom law/regulation other than in relation to cargo 16% 15% Outside P&I cover

Percentage of fines reported under Rule 47.

18 per cent of all fines reported to Gard in the five-year period analysed. However, nearly half (47 per cent) of all custom fines related to carriage of cargo reported to Gard in the period have been imposed by customs authorities in Argentina.1 In an unfortunate new trend, Argentinean customs officials are now requesting cash deposits to secure payment of fines imposed for alleged breach of customs regulations. In the past, security requests have been dealt with by way of issuance of a Club letter of undertaking (LOU) to the vessel’s agent, who is held jointly liable for the alleged breach together with the shipowner. In a recent case involving undeclared goods, customs officials demanded a cash deposit as a guarantee pending commencement of the administrative enquiry, which may take up to six years to conclude. The value of the cash deposit was determined by the customs officials themselves and was based on their assessment of the market value of the undeclared goods. In addition, an LOU had to be issued to the port agent in the event the fine eventually imposed exceeded the value of the initial cash deposit. The vessel was advised that it would be under arrest until the money had been transferred to the designated bank account and that the administrative proceedings for releasing the vessel could take 48 to 72 working hours to complete after receipt of the payment. Finally, there are also indications that customs fines for infringement of customs laws other than in relation to cargo are also on the rise in Argentina. Gard has seen large fines imposed as a result of typos in the documentation presented by the vessel to the customs authorities, such as minor errors in the declaration of stores, bunker quantity or spare parts. The value of these fines appears to be determined by the customs officials, and is often in excess of the market value of the relevant items.

in the bill of lading or manifest and the quantity discharged. The issuance of this type of certificate or correction is a very formal procedure, requiring the involvement of the load port agent and notarisation and legalisation of the documents. It is therefore recommended that Members contact Gard or the local correspondents for advice and guidance if an incident occurs.

In the USA, although fines falling in all four categories described above are regularly imposed, pollution fines remain the main concern, as these can be in the million dollar range. As for Brazil, while fines under all four categories can also arise, the majority relates to non-compliance with Brazilian immigration laws, more specifically visa requirements, which can be applicable to crew members and/or persons other than crew carried on board, such as crew members’ relatives. For some time there has been controversy over fines levied by Brazilian authorities on seafarers joining or departing vessels in Brazil with seafarers’ identity documents issued by a country that has not ratified either the 2003 (No. 185) or 1958 (No. 108) ILO conventions or without a valid Brazilian visa in their passport. A current problem is fines in respect of seafarers’ identity documents that do not comply with ILO 185, which, unlike its predecessor 108, does not authorise a flag state to issue seafarers’ identity documents to

“The bulk of the fines imposed in Turkey refer to environmental pollution. These require the immediate appointment of a local lawyer and a court surveyor.”
New customs regulations related to delivery of spare parts to vessels in Turkey entered into effect on 1st January 2013. Reportedly, Turkish customs authorities now require original invoices for clearance of spare parts. The invoices must have invoice number, date and wet stamp/signature (not copy or digital signature). Local correspondents suggest it may also be helpful to forward copies of the relevant airway bill and packing list. In addition to delay in delivery of the parts, failure to present the invoice may give rise to a fine for breach of customs regulations. Although no incidents involving this new regulation have been reported to Gard so far, the requirements are very stringent and may cause difficulties for shipowners if strictly enforced. However, the bulk of the fines imposed in Turkey refer to environmental pollution. These require the immediate appointment of a local lawyer and a court surveyor. Turkish environmental law provides for fines for activities that may give rise to pollution. This means that a fine can be imposed for pollution that has not yet occurred. Therefore, Members should be proactive if there are allegations of pollution, so that local experts can be retained to monitor the situation and assist in case fines are imposed, especially since fines for pollution can involve sizeable sums of money.

9

“There appears to be a contradictory approach by authorities in different ports regarding the application of the 2003 ILO Convention in Brazil.”
non-nationals/non-residents. There appears to be a contradictory approach by authorities in different ports regarding the application of the 2003 ILO Convention in Brazil, with authorities in most ports enforcing the 1958 version, but in some, most notably in Rio, enforcing the 2003 version. It should be added that the ratification of ILO 185 by the Philippines on 11th October 2011 has resulted in a decrease in the number of this type of claim. However, visa requirements are an ongoing challenge for vessels calling at Brazil and Members are therefore encouraged to obtain detailed information about Brazilian visa requirements prior to arrival at the first Brazilian port of call, and to co-operate closely with the vessel’s local agent in order to ensure compliance. 

Turkey
Approximately eight per cent of the finesrelated claims reported to Gard during the five years surveyed have been imposed in Turkey. For customs fines related to cargo, Turkey has a system similar to that of Argentina, where the fine can be served on the vessel’s local agent. However, in Turkey it is sometimes possible to avoid a customs fine by issuing a “short shipment certificate” or “correction manifest”, in cases where there is a minor variation between the cargo quantity declared

USA and Brazil
In addition to Argentina and Turkey, the USA and Brazil are the two other jurisdictions where a large number of fines is regularly imposed on shipowners, accounting for eight and seven per cent respectively of the total number of fines reported to Gard.

1 See Loss Prevention Circular No. 13-10, “Argentina – Local customs regulations” at www.gard.no.

GARD NEWS ISSUE 210 May/July 2013

UK Hydrographic Office’s ECDIS workshops
Help is at hand for the integration of ECDIS into shipping fleets.

10

Maritime navigation is going digital. Revisions to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) regulations requiring the carriage of Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS) on the commercial shipping fleet are ushering in a new era of voyage planning and navigation that relies upon digital charts. However, whilst the adoption of digital navigation may be mandatory, it is not simple. To comply with the revised regulations in a safe, timely and efficient manner, shipping companies need to plan ahead for the integration of ECDIS into their fleets. The revised SOLAS regulations requiring the carriage of ECDIS on most large vessels mark a historic change to the way that ships navigate. ECDIS carriage becomes mandatory for different ship types and sizes on a rolling basis that began in 2012 and will be complete in 2018.1

The transition to digital navigation has not only required action by shipowners, operators and officers, it has also placed a greater responsibility on those charged with producing accurate navigational data in a digital format, ready for use on ECDISequipped vessels. The UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) is working harder than ever to meet

including unique coverage for over 200 of the world’s biggest and busiest ports. Over 200,000 pieces of information are triplechecked every year, making sure that the available navigational data is as safe as possible. The key to the digital transition is early preparation. With dozens of ECDIS models on the market and differing flag state and class society requirements on ECDIS Type Approval certificates, installation standards and approved training, there is a huge amount for owners and operators to think about. The picture will continue to evolve during 2013 as

“The revised SOLAS regulations requiring the carriage of ECDIS on most large vessels mark a historic change to the way that ships navigate.”
the needs of the global fleet. The Admiralty Vector Chart Service (AVCS) now holds over 12,000 Electronic Navigational Charts,

1

See article “ECDIS implementation” in Gard News issue No. 208.

shipping companies focus on the practical aspects of how compliance is not only achieved, but also demonstrated. With all this in mind, 2013 is set to be a significant year in the transition to digital navigation, with the pace of change expected to rapidly accelerate as the shipping industry responds to the scale of the challenge that it faces. At every stage, there are important decisions to be taken by shipowners and operators over the right approach to take towards integrating ECDIS, with serious repercussions if the wrong choices are made. This is why the UKHO has developed two workshops to assist shipping companies with the transition to digital navigation.2

bridge operations, who leads the workshop, explains what delegates can expect: “Many shipping companies are daunted by the prospect of preparing for ECDIS and underestimate the time required to properly plan for the integration of digital navigation into their fleet. Our workshop will not only help shipping companies to understand how to

Different vessel types and sizes face different compliance deadlines, with existing vessels required to install ECDIS before their first survey once the regulations are in force.

Stage 2
With the key compliance dates established, owners should then conduct an initial ECDIS risk assessment that identifies the general risks faced by their fleet during the ECDIS adoption process. This should take on board the views of both seafarers and shore staff, with the purpose of establishing a strategy for the adoption of ECDIS, including a time line.

“At every stage, there are important decisions to be taken by shipowners and operators over the right approach to take towards integrating ECDIS.”
comply with the revised SOLAS regulations, it will also help them to arrive at the optimal ECDIS solution that is right for their fleet, right for their crew and right for their operations”. In the workshop delegates are taken through the nine stages that they need to follow in order to achieve a safe and efficient transition to digital navigation.

Stage 3
The third stage in the process is to plan for ECDIS training. Ensuring that seafarers are compliant and confident in the use of ECDIS is perhaps the biggest challenge of the digital transition. Between now and 2018, it is estimated that up to 200,000 officers must

11

Digital integration workshop
The first workshop, Admiralty Digital Integration, provides a nine-stage step-bystep process to ensure the ECDIS is compliant, safe and efficient. This workshop has been delivered world-wide during 2012 attracting over 1,000 representatives of the shipping industry. Due to its popularity it will continue to be presented in 2013. Captain Paul Hailwood, an internationallyrespected expert on ECDIS and integrated

Stage 1
The first step in the process is to identify the key SOLAS compliance dates for your fleet.

2 The UK Hydrographic Office is the power behind the Admiralty brand of global navigational products and services, which is the official provider of the workshops.

The nine-step process for a safe and efficient transition to digital navigation.

Illustration courtesy of The UK Hydrographic Office.

undertake generic and type-specific ECDIS training. It is vital to ensure that any course is approved by a marine administration on the STCW white list and is accepted by the flag state of the vessel on which the officer will serve. It is also important that the relevant ECDIS manufacturer approves type-specific training.

Stage 7
Having already undertaken a fleet-wide risk assessment, shipping companies should then conduct individual ship ECDIS risk assessments in order to identify the hazards and procedures specific to the vessel and its ECDIS. Again, ships’ officers should be involved in this process, with necessary refinements made to ECDIS operating procedures.

interpretation. The workshop will clarify these issues and provide a checklist of items and issues required by international standards. This will assist the shipping companies to prepare for any port state inspection or third party audit relating to the ECDIS. Policy and procedures for the operational use of ECDIS should be developed through a structured risk analysis process. The workshop will identify the hazards associated with the operation of ECDIS and control measures to adopt to minimise the risk. Although the shipping industry is an expert at risk assessment, it is identifying the hazards and control methods which require expertise in ECDIS. The UKHO is well placed to provide this expertise.

Stage 4
Once the shipowner has chosen an ECDIS manufacturer, they must ensure the correct installation of ECDIS. It is important to verify that the ECDIS Type Approval certificate is acceptable to flag state and to comply with both flag state and classification society requirements for the installation process itself. It is also necessary to consider back-up systems, redundancy and on-going maintenance of ECDIS.

12

“Having already undertaken a fleet-wide risk assessment, shipping companies should then conduct individual ship ECDIS risk assessments in order to identify the hazards and procedures specific to the vessel and its ECDIS.”
Stage 8
Once ECDIS training, procedures and installation are complete, the flag state will need to approve the ECDIS as the primary means of navigation for each ship. Each vessel will then be ready to make the transition from paper charts to ECDIS. This transition can take place over several months, in order to build up officers’ experience and confidence.

Conclusion
The UKHO has been charting the world’s oceans for more than 200 years and continues to set the global standard for navigational data, with its Admiralty paper and digital chart and publication services used on the majority of international commercial ships. AVCS, which now holds over 12,000 Electronic Navigational Charts, offers the widest official chart coverage available for major shipping routes and ports. The UKHO is also playing a vital role in supporting the shipping industry’s transition to digital navigation, including its ECDIS workshops.

Stage 5
Alongside the installation of ECDIS, each shipping company needs to establish safe and efficient ECDIS operating procedures that are appropriate to its business, its policies and its operational needs, as well as being suitable for its vessels. Such ECDIS procedures should be incorporated into the Safety Management System.

“Just as safe navigation has always relied upon accurate paper charts, shipping companies operating an ECDIS must ensure the use of up-to-date official Electronic Navigational Charts.”
Stage 6
Just as safe navigation has always relied upon accurate paper charts, shipping companies operating an ECDIS must ensure the use of upto-date official Electronic Navigational Charts (ENCs). Where ENCs are not available and flag requirements can be met, Raster Navigational Charts, which are exact digital copies of paper charts, may be used. This requires ships to properly manage their charts, using a tool such as the Admiralty e-Navigator PC application. This is the easiest way to include the Admiralty Information Overlay, which is displayed as a layer on top of the electronic chart, highlighting Admiralty Temporary and Preliminary Notices to Mariners, along with navigationally significant differences between ENCs and paper charts.

Stage 9
The final step in the process is to implement ECDIS on board. A good way to support this process is to place an ECDIS-experienced officer on board to assist with the implementation, mentor other officers and develop common standards.

Policy and procedures workshop
The second workshop, Admiralty Guide to policy and procedures for the operational use of ECDIS, is a response to the requests from those attending the first workshop for more detail and assistance with regulatory requirements and development of ECDIS policy and procedure. To achieve SOLAS carriage requirements for the use of ECDIS as a primary means of navigation, the ship’s Safety Management System shall include procedures for the operational use of ECDIS. This workshop utilises the expertise of the UKHO to assist shipping companies to achieve this important requirement. Legal requirements for the adoption of ECDIS may appear complex and vary with

“By enhancing situational awareness on the bridge, ECDIS can deliver improved safety and operational efficiency, with the commercial benefits that follow.”
The mandatory carriage of ECDIS is just one item on the task-list of the shipping industry’s hard-pressed Superintendents and Fleet Managers. However, a successful digital transition that uses ECDIS to its full capacity can deliver much more than regulatory compliance. By enhancing situational awareness on the bridge, ECDIS can deliver improved safety and operational efficiency, with the commercial benefits that follow. For more resources to assist with the transition to digital navigation, including the Admiralty ECDIS workshops taking place throughout 2013, visit www.admiralty.co.uk. 

Limitation of liability in Italy
Italy gets closer to the LLMC Convention regime, “ma non troppo”.

13

Most countries within the European Union have ratified and enacted either the 1957 or the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) and protocols. Italy, however, has chosen to maintain its own regime of limitation of liability for maritime claims. Even though the ratification procedure was started some time ago and the Italian government has already been authorised to ratify the 1976 LLMC Convention as amended by the Protocol of 1996, ratification has not yet been completed and a shipowner’s possibility to limit liability under Italian law has, therefore, until now, been governed by the Italian Code of Navigation. The limitation system in the Code of Navigation differs significantly from both the 1957 and the 1976 LLMC Conventions and, among other things, grants the benefit of limitation only to the operator of the vessel. However, in this regard it should be noted that Italian courts only apply Italian law to cases involving ships flying the Italian flag. Italian courts would apply the 1957/1976 LLMC Convention if the ship flew the flag of a state signatory to that convention.

subject to limitation under the 1996 LLMC Protocol, up to the relevant maximum limits laid down in it. Member states were required to enact laws incorporating the Directive before 1st January 2012 and in compliance with that requirement Italian Legislative Decree 111/2012 entered into force on 10th August 2012.

“The implementation and application of the new regime has caused some difficulties.”
Amendment to the Code of Navigation
However, Decree 111 does not only contain provisions regarding compulsory insurance, but also introduces a new regime of limitation of liability for Italian shipowners operating in Italian waters. It provides for an amendment to the provisions of the Code of Navigation, having the effect of rendering the limitation regime in the Code applicable only to vessels with a gross tonnage below 300 GT. For vessels of 300 GT or greater the Decree introduces a liability regime almost identical to Chapter II (Limits of Liability) of the 1976 LLMC Convention, as amended by the 1996 Protocol. However, the implementation and application of the new regime has caused some difficulties: – According to the Decree, only registered owners and demise charterers would be

entitled to limit their liability, whilst the LLMC states in Article 1.2 that “owners, charterers, manager or operator of a seagoing ship” shall have the right to limit their liability in accordance with the convention. – The Decree does not list claims which are subject to limitation and those excluded from the same. – The Decree does not contain any provision regarding loss of the right to limit liability. This may contradict the principles of the Italian Constitution. – The Decree does not contain any procedural rules applicable to limitation proceedings. This should mean that the rules in the Code of Navigation remain in force. Furthermore, unlike the 1976 LLMC Convention Article 9, which states that the convention only applies to occurrences taking place after its entry into force in each state, the Decree does not contain any provision clarifying whether or not it is retroactive.

Conclusion
The Italian Maritime Law Association has proposed the immediate ratification of the 1976 LLMC Convention and 1991 Protocol, in accordance with the authority already given to the government. Indeed, ratification and enactment of the LLMC Convention would be a sensible way to overcome the discrepancies between the Italian regime and the convention. Gard News will keep readers informed about any developments. 

Directive 2009/20/EC
Notwithstanding the above, Italy is a member of the European Union and is therefore directly affected by regulations and directives issued by the union. In April 2009 the European Union issued Directive 2009/20/EC (the Insurance Directive), which requires owners of ships of 300 GT or greater to maintain insurance to cover maritime claims

Limitation of liability is upheld by French courts – 22 years on

14

Following 22 years of litigation in the French courts, a shipowner has at last been granted the right to limit his liability in accordance with the 1976 LLMC, but the case is not finished, as the claimant may appeal to the French Supreme Court.

Introduction
One of the fundamental principles behind most IMO conventions is balance. This means achieving a compromise between the interests of the claimants and the party potentially liable, usually the shipowner. This is seen clearly in conventions such as the Civil Liability Convention, where, in exchange for accepting virtually strict liability, the shipowner is given a nearly unbreakable right to limit his liability for claims falling under the convention. A similar balance can be seen in the 1976 Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Convention (LLMC) and the Protocols thereto. The LLMC does not concern itself with liability per se, so the balance that was achieved here was to increase substantially the per tonnage limit of liability applicable under the earlier limitation convention of 1957, while giving the shipowner a virtually unbreakable right to limit his liability for claims falling under the convention. Although several protocols to the 1976 LLMC increased the limit of liability substantially, the test for breaking the limit has been left unchanged, which shows clearly the widespread acceptance by states of such principles.

The test for breaking limitation is set out in Article 4 of the 1976 LLMC, which states that: “A person liable shall not be entitled to limit his liability if it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result.”

“Although several protocols to the 1976 LLMC increased the limit of liability substantially, the test for breaking the limit has been left unchanged.”
It is generally accepted that the onus of proof under this article rests on the claimant and that such onus is extremely hard to discharge. For example, in their book “Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims” (3rd edition) Griggs and Williams say that: “[…] Article 2(1) of the 1976 Convention stipulates that ‘Subject to Articles 3 and 4, the

following claims … shall be subject to limitation of liability’. These words reflect the basic philosophy underlying the new system to the effect that the right to limit applies automatically unless evidence is produced proving that the party claiming limitation is guilty of conduct barring limitation within the terms of Article 4. Additionally the wording of Article 4 itself makes it plain that the right to limit exists unless the person challenging the right to limit proves conduct barring limitation.” Nevertheless, certain claimants, including certain states which are signatories to the LLMC and similar conventions, have from time to time brought legal proceedings in an apparent attempt to circumvent the “basic philosophy” mentioned above. One such case concerns the HEIDBERG, a small Germanflagged vessel. The incident occurred in March 1991. After numerous hearings before various French courts, a decision in January 2013 by the Court of Appeal in Bordeaux appears to have granted the owners the right to rely on the limitation provisions contained in the 1976 LLMC, to which France is a signatory. However, despite the 22 years

which have passed since the incident, it cannot be said that the case is concluded, as it is possible claimants may seek to appeal the decision to the Cour de Cassation, the French supreme court.

sailed from Bordeaux – with the same complement of crew as at the time of the incident and apparently with no requirements in relation to the manning level imposed by either France or Germany. The legal battle continued. The shipowner appealed the decision of the first instance court in Bordeaux and continued to argue he was entitled to limit his liability and to recover what he saw as the excess amount paid to the claimant. The claimant resisted and brought a criminal action against the owner, on the

The HEIDBERG case
The HEIDBERG was leaving Bordeaux in March 1991 with a river pilot on board when, due to a navigational error, she struck an oil jetty, causing major damage and resulting in a claim significantly in excess of the amount to which the shipowner should have been entitled to limit his liability under the 1976 LLMC. As is common in such cases, the shipowner established a limitation fund shortly after the incident. Nevertheless, and despite the limitation fund having been constituted, the local court refused to release the vessel from arrest and she remained in Bordeaux, under arrest, while the issue was fought in the French courts. By itself, the issue of release from arrest gave rise to diplomatic exchanges between the French and German governments and three separate hearings before the Cour de Cassation, before the vessel was finally allowed to sail in the autumn of 1993. One may wonder quite how diplomatic these exchanges were. Such a delay was merely the opening act in the drama which was to follow. While the issue of whether the vessel should be

due to a simple error in navigation and that there was no issue of undermanning or any other conduct on the part of the shipowner which might prevent him from limiting his liability. So the owner finally succeeded on this point. However, this decision was not issued until January 2013, five years after the Cour de Cassation referred the case back to the appeal court and some 22 years after the incident itself. It is understood that the claimant has the option to appeal this judgment to the Cour de Cassation, so it cannot yet be said that the matter is concluded.

“The shipowner appealed the decision of the first instance court in Bordeaux and continued to argue he was entitled to limit his liability and to recover what he saw as the excess amount paid to the claimant.”
basis that, in the limitation proceedings, the owner had submitted forged documents to the court. It took the owner until 2003 to get this action dismissed by the criminal appeal court. Two years later, in 2005, the civil appeal court issued its decision. It upheld the decision of the first instance court that the owner was not allowed to limit his liability. In so finding, the appeal court decided that, contrary to the allegation made by the claimant at first instance, the vessel was properly manned. However, the appeal court decided that the owner had failed to ensure that the master and crew were properly trained to work together efficiently – a point which had not been raised by the claimant – and that this amounted to conduct barring limitation. The owner then appealed to the Cour de Cassation. In 2007, the owner succeeded with the appeal, but only on a procedural point, which did not address the fundamental issues raised by this case. In addition, as a result of its decision the Cour de Cassation referred the matter back to the appeal court for reconsideration, so the owner faced the risk that the appeal court might well reach the same decision it had reached in 2005, albeit on slightly different grounds. The outcome was bitter-sweet for the owner. In contrast to its initial ruling, the court of appeal this time decided that the incident was

Comment
An English judge once commented that “justice delayed is justice denied”. The fact that this case has been alive for 22 years and may still not be finished does not reflect well on the legal system in question. Such a delay is unlikely to have been welcomed by either party to the litigation. When compared to cases brought in other jurisdictions and, as here, involving attempts by shipowners to limit their liability under the 1976 LLMC, the initial decisions of the French courts, denying the owner the right to limit his liability, have been seen as inconsistent with the wording of Article 4 of the LLMC and the way in which it is thought it should be interpreted. A number of “limitation cases” have been brought before the English courts. Each case is of course dependent on its own facts, but in no reported case up to now has an English court found that the conduct on the part of the “person liable” – the shipowner – was such as to break his right to limit. It has been said (by some well-known French lawyers among others) that the test the French courts will apply when considering limitation issues is that of gross negligence, rather than whether “it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result”. For them to work effectively and efficiently, international conventions such as the 1976 LLMC need to be interpreted consistently regardless of where the litigation in any particular case takes place. It is to be hoped that the 2013 decision of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal, granting the shipowner the right to limit liability, will ensure consistency in the interpretation of the LLMC in the future and that other shipowners do not have to wait 22 years to achieve justice. 

15

“French proceedings resulted in the Bordeaux court finding that the shipowner was not entitled to limit his liability, on the ground that the vessel was under-manned.”
released from arrest was being argued, separate French proceedings resulted in the Bordeaux court finding that the shipowner was not entitled to limit his liability, on the grounds that the vessel was undermanned, that such apparent undermanning had caused or contributed to the incident and that such alleged undermanning was conduct on the part of the “person liable” satisfying the test under Article 4 of the LLMC. The amount awarded to the claimants was, it is understood, some 25 times higher than the owner’s limitation figure. To obtain the release of the vessel, the shipowner had no option but to pay this amount and some four years after the incident the vessel finally

Death and personal injury claims in China – New legislative development
Changes to trial rules in relation to death and personal injury cases in China.

16

The Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has recently abolished the Rules for Trial of Cases over Compensation for Foreign-related Maritime Casualties 1992 (the 1992 Rules), and stipulated that death and personal injury claims shall be subject to the Chinese Maritime Code and the Supreme Court Interpretation of Some Issues concerning Law Application for Trial of Cases on Compensation for Personal Injury (the 2003 Interpretation). The following analysis about the legislative development is based upon claims for death, but it can also be generally applied to claims for personal injury.

General
Under the 1992 Rules, compensation for death includes the following items: 1. loss of income; 2. medical expenses; 3. compensation for family members’ mental trauma; 4. funeral expenses; and 5. other costs, such as costs for searching for the body, transport expenses, accommodation fee, income loss due to missed working time. According to the 2003 Interpretation, compensation for death will include:

1. medical expenses; 2. income loss due to missed working time; 3. nursing expenses; 4. transport expenses; 5. accommodation fee; 6. subsidies for board expenses in hospital; 7. expenses for nutrition; 8. funeral fee; 9. living expenses for a person in need of maintenance and upbringing; 10. death compensation; 11. transport expense for funeral; 12. accommodation fee for funeral; 13. income loss due to missed working time during the funeral process; and 14. compensation for family members’ mental trauma. Although the items in the 1992 Rules and the 2003 Interpretation are not identical, in practice they result in similar compensation (except for some detailed calculation rules). For example, living expenses for a person in need of maintenance and upbringing under the 2003 Interpretation is supposed to have been included in the loss of income under the 1992 Rules.

The most significant change – Foreign shipowners will only have vessel’s tonnage limitation now
Probably the most significant change will be that foreign shipowners will not be able to seek limitation under the 1992 Rules (RMB 800,000 per person, around USD 128,532) when facing death and personal injury claims governed by Chinese law. Now foreign shipowners will have to pay in full the final compensation which has been established to be reasonable, unless the final compensation is above the tonnage limitation (which in most cases should not happen).

Important aspects of the 2003 Interpretation
New basis for calculation of death compensation under the 2003 Interpretation, which usually contributes to the largest part of the final compensation amount While under the 1992 Rules the final compensation amount is largely affected by a deceased/injured person’s loss of income, under the 2003 Interpretation the same will be mainly subject to the per capita disposable income of urban residents or the per capita

net income of rural residents in the last auditing year at the locality of the court seized. Both the average per capita disposable income of urban residents and the average per capita net income of rural residents change yearly with the economic development. Both the per capita disposable income of urban residents and the per capita net income of rural residents in the last auditing year vary a lot from one province to another. Hence, the final compensation amount will be different if the same case is heard by different courts with the use of the same calculation formula.

Urban residents or rural residents It is important to identify whether a claimant is an urban resident or a rural resident, because the per capita disposable income of urban residents is higher than the per capita net income of rural residents. One quick way to establish this is to check the household registration of the claimants. It has long been argued in China that it is unfair for two persons to receive a different amount of compensation in the same incident just because of the difference in the identity of urban/rural residents. Hence, the Supreme Court once formally replied to local courts (in road traffic disputes) that if a claimant lives in a city and his main income is earned in a city, then he should be deemed as an urban resident even though the household registration shows him as a rural resident.

This principle may also be applied to death and personal injury claims in maritime area. Living expenses for a person in need of maintenance and upbringing There are two kinds of people who will be in need of maintenance and upbringing, namely a child under eighteen and other relatives a deceased crew is obliged to support (such as his mother and father). The 2003 Interpretation takes a strict view on how to define other relatives in need of support, who should neither have capacity to work nor other sources of income. It remains to be seen how the courts will interpret this principle in practice. If the relative in question has other persons who have the obligation to support him, the compensation should be reduced proportionately. 

17

“The final compensation amount will be different if the same case is heard by different courts with the use of the same calculation formula.”
For example, Shanghai is supposed to have the highest per capita disposable income of urban residents. In this respect, even where all the circumstances are the same (same medical expenses, etc.), a claimant can receive higher compensation if he pursues a claim in Shanghai Maritime Court instead of a court in a different locality. According to past experience, a claimant usually tries to establish a forum by either inserting a jurisdiction clause in a letter of undertaking or arresting a ship. It is expected that Shanghai Maritime Court may be more popular for death and personal injury claims in the future.

Gard’s additional covers – Container and Equipment Cover
An introduction to the latest product to be incorporated into Gard’s range of additional covers.

Gard’s new Container and Equipment Cover (CEC) has been developed to meet the needs of container owners, operators or lessees, typically liner vessel operators. CEC will respond to theft, loss of or damage to containers, flat racks, MAFIs and similar equipment used for carrying goods. In addition, CEC covers a container’s contribution to general average. As a property insurance, the CEC complements liability insurances like P&I and the Comprehensive Carriers Cover. But while marine liability insurance is normally closely linked to the insured ship, the main focus of the CEC is the cargo-carrying equipment. In addition, CEC is not restricted to sea transport. If a container sustains damage whilst being stored at a shore-side terminal or during inland transport by truck, the cover may still respond.

The limit of cover is tailored according to the insured’s individual needs with a maximum limit of USD 50 million for all claims arising out of one and the same event. Where replacement and insured values are different CEC covers the lesser of the two.

Example of application
The CEC would respond for instance where a container operator takes CEC to cover his share of containers under a vessel-sharing agreement and ships 1,000 containers on a Panamax vessel, which sinks en route to the discharge port with loss of all 1,000 containers. With the new CEC, Gard can now offer an insurance package tailored to the needs of container logistics providers. For further information, please contact Gard’s Product Development Department. 

“It is expected that Shanghai Maritime Court may be more popular for death and personal injury claims in the future.”
Nevertheless, if a claimant can prove that his hometown’s per capita disposable income of urban residents or per capita net income of rural residents is higher than that of the place where the court is located, then his home town’s standard can be used. This will be the case when a claimant with Shanghai household registration files a claim before Haikou Maritime Court.

GARD NEWS ISSUE 210 May/July 2013

The ERIKA – The Cour de Cassation decision
France’s highest court reaches some controversial conclusions.
In 1999 the Maltese-flagged ERIKA broke in two during a storm off the west coast of France and 10,000 tons of fuel oil spread to, and severely polluted, the French coastline.1 The vessel was owned by Tevere Shipping and under voyage charter to Total Transport Corporation (TTC), a subsidiary of TOTAL SA, the French oil giant. Three years before the spill, France had adopted the 1992 Protocol to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC 92), which provides for strict liability of the registered owner for spills of persistent oil and requires mandatory insurance to the limitation of liability, which is based on tonnage. France had also adopted the convention establishing the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund that pays for pollution claims beyond the CLC limitation. At the heart of the CLC scheme is the so-called “channelling provision”, which provides that all pollution damage claims must be made against the owner under the terms of the convention and no claims can be made against certain others, including the vessel charterer, “unless the damage resulted from their personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result”. The central question in much of the litigation that began in 2007 in the trial court, and ended with the Cour de Cassation decision in 2012, was whether the various key defendants could benefit from the channelling provision. After a four-month trial, the criminal court of first instance in Paris delivered its judgment

18

“The basis for TOTAL SA’s liability was essentially negligent vetting of the vessel.”
finding four defendants – TOTAL SA, classification society RINA, the director of Tevere Shipping, and a director of the technical managers, Panship – criminally liable for the oil spill. Further, the court held the same parties liable for civil damages under French domestic law. The basis for TOTAL SA’s liability was essentially negligent vetting of the vessel. There was no dominant feature; rather the court referred to a “cocktail” of risks in that the vessel was old, had had changes in ownership and classification society several times just before the incident and was also single hulled. The court found that TOTAL SA was not entitled to benefit from the channelling provision because it was the subsidiary, TTC, that was found to have chartered the ship. In 2010 the Paris Court of Appeal  issued a decision upholding the criminal fines. The court, however, reversed the imposition of civil liability as TOTAL SA was found to be a de

The Cour de Cassation rendered its judgment on 25th September 2012.

Gard News has previously reported on the incident and subsequent litigation. See for instance the articles “French court holds multiple defendants liable for ERIKA spill” in Gard News issue No. 190,” A small claim with large consequences” in Gard News issue No. 192, ”The ERIKA – Paris Court of Appeal finds multiple parties criminally liable” in Gard News issue No. 199.
1

facto charterer and therefore entitled to benefit from the channelling provision. While the Paris appeal court found that international conventions did not restrict the French state’s ability to impose criminal liability upon parties under French domestic law, it reversed the judgment for civil liability under the CLC.

the channelling provisions in CLC. However, the fact that the court came to the conclusion that “lack of care” corresponds to “recklessness” suggests an inclination to stretch the legal framework to find compensation for victims outside the Limitation Fund. It will be interesting to see what implication the decision of the Cour de Cassation will have

in parallel civil proceedings filed by the Commune de Masquer. In this separate process a Bordeaux appeal court is due to decide on whether or not TOTAL has contributed to the occurrence of pollution and can be held liable under EU Directive 75/442/EEC (the Waste Directive). Gard News will continue to keep readers informed. 

“The court also confirmed the same four parties criminally liable for causing pollution in French waters and on the shoreline.”
The four parties and a number of claimants appealed against the judgment to the Cour de Cassation.

The Jackson reforms
Significant civil procedure reforms are due to be implemented in England and Wales on 1st April 2013 as the result of recommendations in a review conducted by Lord Justice Jackson and subsequent consultations.
In 2008 Lord Jackson was tasked with conducting a review into the cost of civil litigation, as it was felt by many in the judiciary that the cost of litigation in England and Wales was often disproportionate to the issues and sums claimed. Lord Jackson completed his review in approximately a year and on 14th January 2010 he published his findings. In also recommended that the courts should require litigants to prepare and exchange budgets before the first case management conference and to agree those budgets. At the end of the trial it is intended that the court will then assess costs based on the approved and agreed budget. Following the publication of the report, the Judicial Executive Board agreed to support the recommendations made by Lord Jackson, many of which are due to come into force on 1st April 2013. However, despite the imminence of the implementation date, the Ministry of Justice has only recently set out in detail how these changes to the Civil Procedure Costs Rules will work in practice. Consequently, the full effect of the proposed changes to the Rules and how they may be implemented is still being digested by the legal fraternity. What is known is that some of the proposals put forward by Lord Jackson have been diluted and many of the changes will not affect the Admiralty and Commercial Court. In due course Gard News will provide a more detailed analysis of the Jackson Reforms and how they may affect Members. 

19

Cour de Cassation
After a lengthy process, the Cour de Cassation rendered its judgment on 25th September 2012. First of all they decided that French courts had jurisdiction over the case even though the incident took place in France’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and not within its territorial waters. The court also confirmed the same four parties criminally liable for causing pollution in French waters and on the shoreline. Regarding civil liability, the court found that the classification society was covered by the channelling provision in CLC. However, the court decided that the damage had resulted from the classification society’s “lack of care”, which in the court’s view corresponded to “recklessness” under the CLC. Therefore, RINA could not rely on the protection in CLC. Furthermore, the court also concluded that TOTAL SA, as a charterer, was covered by the channelling provisions in CLC. However, the court came to the conclusion that “lack of care” that was enough to hold TOTAL criminally liable corresponded to “recklessness” and was enough to deny the benefit of channelling under the CLC. Reversing the appeal court decision, the court held TOTAL liable for civil damages without the benefit of channelling under CLC. At last, the court also came to the conclusion that “environmental” damage was the same as “pollution” damage, which meant that environmental damage fell within the scope of CLC.

“In essence, Lord Jackson’s report stated that the cost of litigation should be proportionate to the sum at stake and match the nature and/or complexity of the case.”
essence, his report stated that the cost of litigation should be proportionate to the sum at stake and match the nature and/or complexity of the case. In summary, to help achieve this aim he proposed amendments to contingency fee agreements, cost capping and the creation of damages-based agreements, whereby the lawyer providing the legal service charges his fees based on an amount determined by reference to the financial benefit obtained. Lord Jackson

Conclusion
In spite of everything, it is comforting to note that the court came to the conclusion that in principle TOTAL, as a charterer, was covered by

GARD NEWS ISSUE 210 May/July 2013

The silent sentinels – Increased use of remote marine pollution sensors
20 Remote pollution sensors offer continuous monitoring for pollution at a fixed point.

In this era of increased vigilance in the detection of marine pollution, there have been various efforts by both government and industry to ensure detection of hydrocarbon spills, as well as to enhance spill response. This has included the use of varied technologies, including aerial detection of floating oil, use of infrared/ultraviolet cameras to allow for spill detection at night, the increase in sophistication of oily water separators aboard ships, and the matching of spilled pollutant to the point of source through the employment of precise “chemical fingerprinting” of samples in a laboratory. The further mechanisation and automation of these efforts has been a driver of this theme.

“A more recent development, which focuses on spill detection at more localised areas, is the now more widespread use of remote pollution sensors that offer continuous monitoring for pollution at a fixed point.”
One recent example in major spill events has been the use of small drone aircraft and watercraft,1 and even satellites, all of which can survey large areas of ocean and shoreline continually, for many hours or even days,

controlled remotely by an operator, at a distance on the ground at a control centre, viewing things via an audio/video telecommunication link.

Remote sensors
A more recent development, which focuses on spill detection at more localised areas, is the now more widespread use of remote pollution sensors that offer continuous monitoring for pollution at a fixed point.

1 See article “No place to hide – The expansion of remote surveillance of shipping activity” in Gard News issue No. 206, May/July 2012.

All photos courtesy of InterOcean Systems Inc., San Diego.

“Slick Guard” environmental monitoring platform for offshore, coastal, ports and harbour applications.

21

Typical mounting platform for harbour and terminal pier applications.

These weatherproof units use optical sensors aimed downward at a patch of water within a small radius of the unit. Within the sensors, a high power Xenon lamp is used to produce a high-energy light beam which will cause any oil present in the target area to fluoresce and emit light of its characteristic wavelengths. The cameras can detect extremely minute quantities of hydrocarbons (+/- 3 microns in thickness) floating upon, or even slightly below, the surface of the water within the range of the unit, in a radius up to 10 metres from the device.

one or more modes of telecommunication – radio, data or phone line, mobile phone, Wi-Fi or satellite.

trying to interfere with the device can be detected. These devices could greatly enhance the detection of pollution incidents in port areas, as well as aboard ships and offshore facilities. They can also be placed in remote locations where it is impractical to have persons on watch, particularly at night. Such devices never grow tired, do not miss things, and always report timely. The cost of the devices, when amortised over time, are far lower than having workers observing an area on a continuous basis, freeing such workers to perform more critical functions. It also allows a redundancy of spill detection efforts, avoiding gaps in observations of a particular area. It allows shore-side managerial staff, at long distances from a dock, ship or facility, to be aware of pollution events quickly, gain valuable time in activating response plans, and ask a verification that personnel on the scene are detecting spills and acting appropriately after they are spotted. By getting the very early detection that these devices offer, pollution response can be instituted more quickly – and it is clear that

Implications
The implications of this technology are farreaching. Incidents of pollution in a restricted area, e.g., the side of a ship or dock, a marina or harbour area, the deck of a ship or facility, can be immediately detected and then instantaneously reported to local personnel, who can rush to the scene and verify the situation, or sent to supervisory personnel across the planet. This can occur day or night, on a 24-hour basis, in any weather or setting. These units can even be fitted with flotation, and be deployed like buoys, in both inshore waters and offshore settings. The sensitivity of the units can be adjusted, so that alerts are only sent for higher concentrations of hydrocarbons, or kept highly sensitive. The use of non-contact optical scanning technology means the unit keeps clean and requires little maintenance. The camera settings can be set up so that, if an attempt is made to cover the lens, an alarm will be transmitted, to thwart vandalism or deliberate masking of an ongoing pollution, and if fitted with a video camera, the identity of persons

“Once a pollutant is detected there may be an alarm, either visual or a klaxon, and transmission of a report about the detection to ship crew or dock personnel.”
Once a pollutant is detected there may be an alarm, either visual or a klaxon, and transmission of a report about the detection to ship crew or dock personnel, either nearby or hundreds/thousands of miles away, via text message, e-mail, or voice message, using

the earlier one can respond to a pollution event, the greater the odds for a more contained, less serious situation.

“Of course, no technology is perfect, and these devices can have limitations. The units themselves could break, or power interruptions could impair their function.”
Limitations

resent the presence of an automated “spy” in their workplace, and in the case of a spill caused by human error, might attempt to block detection by the unit with some form of tampering or interference. The units can only detect hydrocarbon pollutants in highly localised zones. This could mean that in the case of a non-hydrocarbon pollutant being emitted, the device would fail to report it. Or, if a large amount of pollution occurred, but for some reason did not flow or float within the range of the device’s camera, that, too, would go unreported.

22

Example of a loading pier.

Of course, no technology is perfect, and these devices can have limitations. The units themselves could break, or power interruptions could impair their function (although such units might be fitted with batteries/solar panels to allow for this contingency). A telecommunications issue could prevent the news of a pollution event from being transmitted to a remote recipient. Also, it must be said that some workers might

Conclusion
All in all, the increase in use of these sophisticated “silent sentinels” means that the gaps in detection of pollution in specific docks, terminals, ships, marinas, offshore facilities or other particular areas could be narrowed to almost nil, making for higher detection rates and increased number of reported incidents, eventually leading to a cleaner environment. 

Frequently asked questions about US sanctions affecting non-US Members
The US continues to introduce new and further tighten existing sanctions against Iran, targeting the petroleum, petrochemical and financial/banking sectors. In addition, new sanctions that will come into effect on 1st July 2013 will target Iran’s ports, shipping, shipbuilding and energy sectors. Many of the US sanctions on Iran apply extra-territorially to non-US shipowners, operators, and insurers. Hence, any voyage to or from Iran, or carrying Iranian-origin cargo, requires particular care, as the Member may risk violating these sanctions and thereby voiding insurance coverage for such voyage under Gard Rules. Gard has therefore recently published a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) focusing on US sanctions that may potentially affect non-US Members, prepared by Jonathan Epstein, Esq., of the Washington office of Holland & Knight LLP. The list is not comprehensive and should be read in conjunction with Gard’s circulars. Each Member should undertake its own review to ascertain compliance, as US sanctions are complex, are changing at a rapid pace, and are dependent on the facts and circumstances of a particular voyage or transaction. Therefore, the answers to the FAQs should not be construed as legal advice by Holland & Knight LLP or Gard with respect to any particular voyage or transaction, or proof of coverage under Gard policies with respect to any particular voyage. The list of FAQs is available from the “Sanctions” section of the Gard website at www.gard.no/ikbViewer/page/preventinglosses/article?p_document_id=20734353. 

Maximising the chances of survival in cold water
A revised edition of the IMO “Guide for Cold Water Survival” has been recently released. The guide has been amended and updated to reflect medical progress made in recent years and is intended primarily for seafarers. It highlights the importance of understanding that an individual is not completely unable to influence his/her own survival in cold water by providing practical advice on how a seafarer can make a difference in a situation where he has fallen into the sea or had to enter the sea in an  emergency. The guide is available at the IMO website (www.imo.org) as “MSC.1/Circ.1185/Rev.1”. 

GARD NEWS ISSUE 210 May/July 2013

Marine propulsion systems
Next in Gard News’ non-mariners’ guide to ship construction and operation is a basic guide to marine propulsion systems, which produce the thrust to push a ship across water. Most modern ships are propelled by mechanical systems consisting of a motor or engine turning a propeller.

The propulsion system on a vessel can be as simple as a diesel engine directly connected to a propeller shaft, which drives the propeller, or more complex systems containing diesel engines powering an electrical generator, supplying electrical power to an electrical motor through a sophisticated control system. The set-up of the propulsion system depends on the vessel size, trade or type of operation.

pitch is altered – increased pitch will give increased speed. To give astern movement the propeller blade is turned to give astern thrust. As the name suggests, a fixed pitch propeller is a propeller with fixed pitch. A propeller’s pitch is defined as the distance the propeller would move during one complete revolution if operating in a solid material, if in water the movement will be less due to slip. If a propeller has a pitch of 40 inches it will move forward 40 inches during a complete revolution. To increase or reduce the vessel’s speed, the rpm of the propeller is increased or reduced. To give astern movement the direction of rotation is reversed, i.e., the propeller rotates the opposite way to ahead movement. The propeller size and design is dependent on the size of the vessel and type of operation. Most commonly used propellers on cargo vessels have four or five propeller blades, but six blades have been used. The propeller may have a diameter of more than nine metres and a weight of 130 tons. The most commonly used materials are stainless steel or a bronze alloy.

23

Most common systems
On larger cargo vessels the most common system is a slow speed main engine with a maximum speed of 100–130 revolutions per minute connected to a fixed pitch propeller. The engines are normally operated on heavy fuel oil. This heavy fuel has to be heated to 120–140 C to allow it to be injected into the engines and burn. These slow speed engines rotate both clockwise and anti-clockwise to allow ahead and astern movements. On smaller vessels the propulsion system often consists of medium speed engines, often 720–750 rotations per minute, connected to a reduction gear reducing the revolutions from the engine speed to a more optimal propeller speed of about 100–120 revolutions per minute. The gear is connected to a propeller shaft with a controllable pitch propeller. These engines will normally run with a fixed rpm and rotate only clockwise or anti-clockwise. Specialised vessels such as offshore support vessels and some cruise vessels use diesel electric propulsion systems with thrusters, commonly known as pods. This system usually consists of four to six diesel engines powering generators which in turn supply electrical power to electrical motors that drive two or more propulsion thrusters. These engines can operate on either heavy fuel oil or diesel oil. The offshore support vessels often use diesel

Slow speed main engine. oil during operations, diving, crane or other critical operations. This is done because diesel oil is considered a more reliable fuel and will provide increased safety. The thrusters are usually equipped with controllable pitch propellers. In addition to the mechanical components, the system consists of highly sophisticated control systems, both controlling the propeller speed and pitch. The thrusters are installed under the vessel and are used for steering purpose as well as propulsion. This obviates the need for a rudder. The propulsion thrusters can turn 360 C and can be used to give a side thrust if required.

© MAN Diesel & Turbo Norge AS.

Other types of propulsion systems
Steam turbines are today mostly used on LNG tankers. This system consists of high pressure boilers which produce steam used to power steam turbines. The steam turbine is connected to a gear which is connected to a propeller shaft with a fixed propeller. The boilers use duel fuel, i.e., heavy fuel oil, diesel oil or so-called “boil-off” gas vapour from the cargo tanks. Gas turbines, as opposed to the name, are normally operated on diesel oil, but they can be duel fuel, i.e., operating on different types of fuel. This type of propulsion is normally used in specialised tonnage where size and output is critical. 

Propeller types
There are two main types of propellers used for propulsion of vessels: controllable pitch propellers (CPP) and fixed pitch propellers. When CPP propellers are used, the direction of rotation on the propeller is the same. To increase or reduce the vessel’s speed the

GARD NEWS ISSUE 210 May/July 2013

Gard P&I Member Circulars and loss prevention updates, winter 2012/13
The following P&I Member Circulars and loss prevention updates have been issued by Gard during the winter of 2012/13: – P&I Member Circular No. 03-13, March 2013: US Pollution – California Certificates of Financial Responsibility (COFR) Requirements. – P&I Member Circular No. 04-13, March 2013: Entry into force of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC). – 12th March 2013: USCG detains vessel for failure to use low sulphur fuel oil in the North American ECA. All circulars and updates are available from www.gard.no. If you would like to receive Gard’s loss prevention e-mails, please contact [email protected]. 

24

P&I Member Circulars
– P&I Member Circular No. 16-12, January 2013: Regulations of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships. – P&I Member Circular No. 17-12, January 2013: Amendments to the Rules for 2013. – P&I Member Circular No. 18-12, February 2013: Reinsurance arrangements for the 2013 Policy Year arranged through the International Group of P&I Clubs. – P&I Member Circular No. 01-13, March 2013: Electronic (Paperless) Trading Systems – Bolero International Limited and Electronic Shipping Solutions – updated ESS DSUA version 2013. – P&I Member Circular No. 02-13, March 2013: Australian Pollution Law – Oil Pollution Indemnity Clause for Penalties and Fines.

Loss Prevention Circulars
– Loss Prevention Circular No. 01-13, February 2013: Flooding of cargo holds on container vessels.

Gard Alerts
– 21st December 2012: Argentina – The importance of accurate customs declarations. – 3rd January 2013: MARPOL Annex V – Revised garbage disposal regulations. – 24th January 2013: Maximising the chances of survival in cold water. – 4th February 2013: Pointe-Noire, Congo – Pollution at berth. – 8th February 2013: Alexandria, Egypt – Groundings in the port entrance.

Staff news
Frode Fugelsnes has joined Gard as Lawyer in the Defence team in Oslo. Frode has an LLM degree from the University of Oslo and previously worked with Føyen, Oslo. He has 10 years’ PQE. Louis Shepherd has joined Gard as Lawyer in the Tokyo office. Louis has a BA degree in Philosophy and Politics from Manchester University and a Law degree from London University. He previously worked with Howse Williams Bowers and Reed Smith Richards Butler, Hong Kong. Chengkang Zhu has joined Gard as Claims Executive in the Hong Kong office. Chengkang has a BSc degree in Maritime Management from Dalian Maritime University and a MJur degree from East China University of Political Science and Law. He previously worked with Sloma & Co., Shanghai. Monica Midteng has been appointed Claims Executive, Lawyer in the Offshore Energy Claims team in Oslo. 

Gard (North America) moving offices
Gard (North America) has recently moved offices to:

40 Fulton Street, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10038.
The new office location is about two blocks from the South Street Seaport. Gard (North America)’s telephone and fax numbers have not changed. 

40 Fulton Street, New York.

Staff directory
Claes Isacson Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mobile +47 97 55 93 37 Hanna Kristensen Underwriting Assistant Portfolio Management Helge A Nordahl Vice President Kjersti Bruborg Business Analyst Veith Huesmann Business Analyst Andre Kroneberg Vice President Thomas Nordberg Managing Director, Gard (Sweden) AB Product & Process Geir Kjebekk Senior Product Adviser Mobile +47 97 55 92 52 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 64 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 89 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 92 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 62 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)70 311 70 02 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 22 [email protected] Anne Wenche Leland Deputy Underwriter Sigrun Ottersland Deputy Underwriter Asia Sid Lock Area Manager Mobile +852 9196 4210 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 92 23 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 97 [email protected]

Sara E. Burgess Mobile +44 (0)7818 421723 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Head of International Group Matters Svein Buvik Senior Vice President, Head of Organisation & ICT Steinar Bye Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Mobile +47 97 55 93 18 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 10 [email protected]

Terje Holte Mobile +852 9154 8101 Vice President, Special Adviser [email protected] Sigvald Fossum Underwriter Toshiyuki Kawana Manager Katherine Wang Deputy Underwriter Mobile +852 9036 6561 [email protected] Mobile +81 (0)90 6479 2544 [email protected] Mobile +852 6396 3291 [email protected]

Underwriting Development

Kristian Dalene Mobile +47 97 55 91 42 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Chief Investment Officer (CIO) Christen Guddal Mobile +47 97 55 92 95 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Head of Quality Management Jan-Erik Braathen Mobile +47 99 28 41 01 Vice President, [email protected] Risk Management and Analysis Peter Janssen Vice President, ICT Mobile +47 97 55 91 46 [email protected]

25

America, Middle East and London Iain Laird Mobile +44 (0)7768 547401 Vice President, Area Manager [email protected] Espen Olsen Area Manager Petter Eid Skalstad Area Manager Stephen Mulcahy Senior Underwriter Wenche Dahle-Olsen Underwriter Samira Hmam Underwriter Mobile +47 99 28 40 51 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 74 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7799 894670 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 71 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7990 591911 [email protected]

Thorbjørn Emanuelsson Mobile +47 94 52 22 51 Product Adviser [email protected] Tonje Forøy Breivik Senior Lawyer Inger Eidem Product Adviser, Lawyer SHIPOWNERS Nordic Reidun Haahjem Mobile +47 99 28 40 56 Vice President, Area Manager [email protected] Steinar Jørgensen Senior Underwriter Patrik Palmgren Manager Karianne Kristensen Underwriter Malena Edh Underwriter Mette Ellefsen Underwriter Henry Hemtman Underwriter Ivar Rokne Underwriter Jonas Albertsson Deputy Underwriter Mobile +47 99 29 22 49 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)40 046 5852 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 72 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)705 469 697 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 92 69 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6943 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 74 [email protected] Mobile +46 703 54 60 90 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 58 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 90 [email protected]

Svein Just Mobile +47 94 52 91 07 Vice President, Property & Service [email protected] Inge Liltved Vice President, Accounts Jens Martinius Nilsen Vice President, Head of Gard Academy Mobile +47 97 55 91 25 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 80 [email protected]

Trygve Nøkleby Mobile +47 99 28 41 11 Vice President, [email protected] Human Resources and Organisation Trond Willy Olsen Vice President, PMO Roar Rasten Vice President, Controller Ove Jarl Andersen Senior Manager, ICT Lily Karaiscos Special Adviser Nicolas Wilmot Special Adviser Claudia Storvik Website Chief Editor, Gard News Editor Group Legal Kjetil Eivindstad Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Counsel Tore A. Svinøy Senior Lawyer Mobile +47 97 55 92 18 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 01 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7826 853782 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 80 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 56 [email protected] Mobile +30 693 220 0209 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 11 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7775 644791 [email protected]

INDUSTRY SEGMENTS Offshore and Charterers Magne Nilssen Mobile +47 97 55 91 20 Vice President, Area Manager [email protected] Terri Lynn Jay Area Manager Tore Furnes Senior Underwriter, Product Responsible Liv Kristensen Senior Underwriter Bart Mertens Senior Underwriter Gisle Brøvig Underwriter Sven Jensen Underwriter Mobile +47 97 55 93 25 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 86 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 21 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 32 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 91 70 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 63 [email protected]

Taru Natri Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6944 Office Manager, Oy Gard (Baltic) [email protected] Northern Europe Bjørn Fremmerlid Mobile +47 97 55 92 43 Vice President, Area Manager [email protected] Stein Wahl Sande Vice President, Senior Underwriter Michaela Carlström Underwriter Inger Aasbø Flaten Underwriter Jai Raymond Johansen Underwiter Karianne Kristensen Underwriter Tor Halvor Løyte Underwriter Southern Europe Audun Fjermedal Pettersen Mobile +47 97 55 92 10 Vice President, Area Manager [email protected] Nina Hovland Senior Underwriter Steinar Jørgensen Senior Underwriter Lisbet Fokstuen Underwiter Mobile +47 99 28 40 62 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 49 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 54 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 84 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)733 55 51 13 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 12 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 34 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 72 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 40 [email protected]

Marianne Bruun Mackrill Mobile +47 97 55 93 38 Underwriter [email protected] Kenneth Meyer Underwriter Mobile +47 99 28 41 05 [email protected]

Lars Lislegard-Bækken Mobile +47 97 55 91 96 Lawyer [email protected] Underwriting Underwriting Management Bjørnar Andresen Mobile +44 (0)7920 163586 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Co-Head of Underwriting Rolf Thore Roppestad Mobile +47 97 55 92 45 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Co-Head of Underwriting Underwriting Operations Knut Goderstad Vice President Bjarne Sælensminde Vice President, Special Adviser Ingebjørg Eliassen Manager Kirsti Hartz Aastorp Underwriting Assistant Mobile +47 97 55 91 27 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 61 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 70 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 03 [email protected]

Atle Jonsborg Pedersen Mobile +47 99 29 22 65 Underwriter [email protected] May Kristin Lillebø Business Analyst Energy Gunnar Aasberg Mobile +47 99 29 22 25 Vice President, Area Manager [email protected] Sabine Colette Mazay Senior Underwriter Liv Sand Senior Underwriter Mobile +47 99 29 22 30 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 19 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 91 26 [email protected]

Ingrid Helena G Larsen Mobile +47 99 29 22 15 Underwriter [email protected] Liv Johanne Nordvik Underwriter Builders’ Risks Knut Morten Finckenhagen Mobile +47 99 29 22 50 Vice President, [email protected] Area Manager Ingunn Brenna Senior Underwriter Mobile +47 99 29 22 55 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 18 [email protected]

Inger-Helene Andersen Mobile +47 94 52 93 27 Underwriting Assistant [email protected] Liv Gundersen Underwriting Assistant Mobile +47 94 52 91 23 [email protected]

Claims Claims Management Svein A. Andersen Senior Vice President, Head of Claims Leif Erik Abrahamsen Vice President, Marine Claims Mobile +47 97 55 91 92 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 41 12 [email protected]

Kine Haaland Claims Executive, Lawyer Beatriz Åsgård Claims Executive Andreas Brachel Senior Manager Gunnar Espeland Senior Claims Adviser

Mobile +47 94 52 22 52 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 91 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 49 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 53 [email protected]

Anne Glestad Lech Senior Claims Adjuster Atle Olav Nordbø Senior Claims Adjuster Thomas Christiansen Claims Executive Hans Jørgen Hald Claims Adjuster

Mobile +47 99 29 22 76 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 24 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 62 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 17 [email protected]

Casualty, Environmental, & Property Claims (Arendal)

Alice Amundsen Mobile +47 97 55 92 65 Vice President, Defence Claims [email protected] Christopher Mackrill Vice President, Collision Claims Mobile +47 97 55 93 61 [email protected]

Kim Jefferies Mobile +47 97 55 92 90 Senior Claims Adviser, Lawyer [email protected] Torgeir Bruborg Mobile +47 94 52 96 18 Senior Claims Executive, Lawyer [email protected] Tonje Castberg Senior Claims Executive Mobile +47 97 55 91 36 [email protected]

Helge Stian Ødegaard Mobile +47 99 29 22 12 Claims Executive [email protected] Marine Claims (Bergen) Leif Erik Abrahamsen Vice President, Marine Claims Sveinung Måkestad Vice President Adrian Moylan Casualty Lawyer Svend Leo Larsen Senior Claims Adviser Mobile +47 99 28 41 12 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 32 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 16 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 22 [email protected]

Jan-Hugo Marthinsen Mobile +47 99 29 22 40 Vice President, [email protected] Offshore Energy Claims Lene-Camilla Nordlie Vice President, People Claims Mobile +47 97 55 92 42 [email protected]

Fredrik Doksrød Olsen Mobile +47 97 55 92 32 Senior Claims Executive, Lawyer [email protected] Roar S. Larsen Senoir Claims Executive Ole Gunstein Aasbø Claims Executive Grethe Ljøstad Claims Executive Paul Andor Marskar Claims Executive Mobile +47 97 55 91 43 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 57 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 16 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 69 [email protected]

26

Nick Platt Mobile +44 (0)7768 547402 Vice President, Environmental Claims [email protected] Mark Russell Mobile +44 (0)7747 758789 Vice President, Cargo Claims [email protected] Geir Sandnes Vice President, Claims Mobile +47 97 55 91 63 [email protected]

Alf Inge Johannessen Mobile +47 99 28 40 28 Senior Claims Adjuster [email protected] Asbjørn Arvid Asbjørnsen Mobile +47 94 52 40 41 Senior Claims Executive [email protected] Trond Justad Senior Claims Executive Vidar Solemdal Senior Claims Executive Påsan Vigerust Senior Claims Executive Marit Bjørnethun Claims Adjuster Svein Arne Nilsen Claims Adjuster Alice Amundsen Vice President Mobile +47 99 28 40 27 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 25 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 71 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 21 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 34 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 65 [email protected]

Terje Paulsen Mobile +47 94 52 40 85 Vice President, Loss Prevention [email protected] & Risk Assessment People Claims (Arendal) Lene-Camilla Nordlie Vice President Kristin Aanonsen Senior Claims Executive Per Fredrik Jensen Senior Claims Executive Christopher Petrie Senior Claims Executive, Lawyer Pål Berglund Claims Executive Lisbeth Christensen Claims Executive Trond Denstad Claims Executive Mobile +47 97 55 92 42 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 47 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 91 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 28 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 37 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 75 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 90 [email protected]

Isabel Martin de Nieto McMath Mobile +47 94 52 96 19 Claims Executive, Lawyer [email protected] Malin Petré Claims Executive, Lawyer Mark Russell Vice President Mobile +47 94 52 96 54 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7747 758789 [email protected]

Liquid Cargo Claims (Arendal)

Stefan Bjarnelöf-Sovtic Mobile +47 94 52 96 75 Senior Claims Executive [email protected] Alf Ove Stenhagen Senior Claims Executive Emil Evnum Claims Executive Severin Frigstad Claims Executive Robert Skaare Claims Executive Johan Svensson Claims Executive Christopher Walker Senior Manager Michael Moon Senior Lawyer Alejandra Hardisson Sterri Senior Claims Executive, Lawyer Frode Fugelsnes Lawyer Hanne Topland Lawyer Tove Kaasine Skjeldal Claims Executive Anette Stinessen Claims Executive Mobile +47 97 55 91 66 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 28 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 91 60 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 52 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 55 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 75 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 11 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 71 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 57 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 91 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 41 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 45 [email protected]

Defence Claims (Arendal)

Heiko Bloch Mobile +47 97 55 92 08 Senior Claims Executive, Lawyer [email protected] Arne Sætra Senior Lawyer Veronica Villegas Lawyer Philip Woodroffe Lawyer Terje Paulsen Vice President Mobile +47 97 55 92 92 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 12 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 69 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 40 85 [email protected]

Roy Kenneth Jenssveen Mobile +47 97 55 93 41 Claims Executive [email protected] Gudrun Mortensen Aaserud Mobile +47 97 55 91 17 Claims Executive [email protected] Thomas Ravnevand Claims Executive Stig Garmann Tønnesen Claims Executive, Lawyer Anne Boye Senior Manager Einar Gulbrandsen Senior Claims Executive Linn Therese Mostad Claims Executive Tom Bent Opsal Nielsen Claims Executive Gitana Røyset Claims Executive, Lawyer Grethe Øynes Claims Executive Andres Duran Senior Manager Odd Helgesen Senior Claims Executive Mobile +47 94 52 96 14 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 91 15 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 18 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 64 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 92 56 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 62 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 41 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 77 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 61 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 02 [email protected]

P&I and Defence Claims (Oslo)

Loss Prevention & Risk Assessment

Alf Martin Sandberg Mobile +47 97 55 92 51 Senior Technical Adviser [email protected] Bjarne Augestad Senior Marine Surveyor Per Arne Sæther Senior Marine Surveyor Magnar Birkeland Senior Risk Assessment Executive Marius Schønberg Senior Loss Prevention Executive Kristin Urdahl Loss Prevention Executive Per Haveland Marine Surveyor Mobile +47 97 55 92 54 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 29 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 18 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 75 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 92 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 17 [email protected]

Dry Cargo Claims North (Arendal)

Offshore Energy Claims (Oslo) Jan-Hugo Marthinsen Mobile +47 99 29 22 40 Vice President [email protected] Torstein Søreng Senior Claims Executive Radmil Kranda Claims Executive, Lawyer Monika Midteng Claims Executive, Lawyer Nils-Joakim Rosdahl Claims Executive Marine Claims (Oslo) Ivar Brynildsen Senior Manager Karl Petter Mühlbradt Senior Claims Adviser Mobile +47 99 29 22 31 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 78 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 47 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 13 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 61 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 43 [email protected]

Dry Cargo Claims South (Arendal)

Lise Neset Mobile +47 97 55 92 39 Risk Assessment Co-ordinator [email protected] Corporate Relations Line Dahle Vice President Karin Nicolaisen Research Executive Vivi Sandsten Research Executive Accounting Solvor Ek Hayes Senior Manager Inger Kristiansen Senior Manager Mobile +47 97 55 91 48 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 74 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 53 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 13 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 22 [email protected]

Morten Mauritz Seines Mobile +47 97 55 91 82 Senior Claims Executive, Lawyer [email protected] Torgrim Andersen Claims Executive Sandra Guiguet Claims Executive, Lawyer Vincent Gustavi Claims Executive, Lawyer Mobile +47 97 55 93 47 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 71 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 44 [email protected]

Roy Falk Lorentzen Senior Manager Jorunn Bjørkli Manager Gard (Sweden) AB Thomas Nordberg Managing Director Yvonne Mikulandra Controller Underwriting Lars Schedenborg Special Adviser Michaela Carlström Underwriter Malena Edh Underwriter Jonas Albertsson Deputy Underwriter Claims Johan Henriksson Senior Manager Thomas Forssen Claims Executive Patrik Friberg Claims Executive Jonas Gustavsson Claims Executive Jerker Paulusson Claims Executive Johan Holmqvist Åstrand Claims Adjuster Gard (UK) Limited Bjørnar Andresen Managing Director

Mobile +47 94 52 92 14 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 88 [email protected]

Jim Edwards Senior Lawyer James Hawes Senior Lawyer Helenka Leary Senior Lawyer Helen Sandgren Senior Lawyer Kelly Wagland Senior Lawyer Monica Kohli Lawyer Oy Gard (Baltic) Ab Roberto Lencioni Managing Director Taru Natri Office Manager Underwriting Patrik Palmgren Manager Henry Hemtman Underwriter Claims Johan Lång Claims Manager Riika Ahtiala Claims Executive

Mobile +44 (0)7879 235982 Mobile +44 (0)7547 480246 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7887 508198 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7766 251387 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7901 530812 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7789 938200 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7920 423832 [email protected]

Fernando Shuhei Iida Claims Executive Hiroko Suzue Claims Executive

Mobile +81 (0)80 4294 7788 [email protected] Mobile +81 (0)80 4142 9718 [email protected]

Masamichi Yokoyama Mobile +81 (0)80 3546 5062 Claims Executive [email protected] Gard (North America) Inc Sandra Gluck President Evanthia Coffee Senior Lawyer Mobile +1 (917) 670 3169 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 399 5918 [email protected]

Mobile +46 70 311 70 02 [email protected] Mobile +46 70 787 04 06 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)70 792 60 84 [email protected] Mobile +46 733 55 51 13 [email protected] Mobile +46 705 469 697 [email protected] Mobile +46 703 54 60 90 [email protected] Mobile +46 70 787 04 07 [email protected] Mobile +46 70 655 92 92 [email protected] Mobile +46 70 878 74 15 [email protected] Mobile +46 70 633 92 94 [email protected] Mobile +46 73 442 60 70 [email protected] Mobile +46 70 536 71 54 [email protected]

Frank Gonynor Mobile +1 (917) 670 3164 Senior Claims Adviser, Lawyer [email protected] John Scalia Senior Claims Adviser Edward Fleureton Senior Claims Executive Hugh Forde Senior Lawyer Claudia Botero-Götz Senior Lawyer Kunbi Sowunmi Senior Lawyer Cheryl Acker Claims Executive Dina Gallaro Claims Executive Christine Thomas Claims Executive Gard (Greece) Ltd George Karkas Managing Director Joakim Bronder Senior Manager Dominic Hurst Senior Lawyer Peggy Lemou Senior Claims Executive Mobile +30 694 451 3350 [email protected] Mobile +30 693 662 1102 [email protected] Mobile +30 694 972 3460 [email protected] Mobile +30 694 646 0128 [email protected] Mobile +1 (516) 551 1577 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 670 3510 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 670 3753 [email protected] Mobile +1 (646) 248 8109 [email protected] Mobile +1 (646) 812 3447 [email protected] Mobile +1 (203) 258 7059 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 670 3209 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 670 3271 [email protected]

Mobile +358 (0)50 500 0000 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6944 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)40 046 5852 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6943 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6941 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6946 [email protected]

27

Mikael Björklund Mobile +358 (0)40 544 1949 Claims Executive, Lawyer [email protected] Martin Jansson Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6942 Claims Executive, Surveyor [email protected] Gard (HK) Ltd Richard Corwin Managing Director Underwriting Terje Holte Mobile +852 9154 8101 Vice President, Special Adviser [email protected] Sid Lock Area Manager, Asia Sigvald Fossum Underwriter Katherine Wang Deputy Underwriter Claims Einar Christensen Claims Director Craig Johnston Senior Lawyer Tony Wong Senior Lawyer Michelle Pun Senior Claims Executive Charmaine Chu Claims Executive Zoe Ho Claims Executive Nancy Kam Claims Executive, Lawyer Patrick Lee Claims Executive Joseph Liu Lawyer Wallace Yeung Claims Executive Chengkang Zhu Claims Executive Gard (Japan) K.K. Mobile +852 9106 9262 [email protected] Mobile +852 6398 7265 [email protected] Mobile +852 6398 7265 [email protected] Mobile +852 9337 6463 [email protected] Mobile +852 6478 7264 [email protected] Mobile +852 6478 7262 [email protected] Mobile +852 6292 7578 [email protected] Mobile +852 9107 0302 [email protected] Mobile +852 6478 7260 [email protected] Mobile +852 9124 6365 [email protected] Mobile +852 9032 0502 [email protected] Mobile +852 9196 4210 [email protected] Mobile +852 9036 6561 [email protected] Mobile +852 6396 3291 [email protected] Mobile +852 6391 1334 [email protected]

Mobile +44 (0)7920 163586 [email protected]

Nick Platt Mobile +44 (0)7768 547402 Vice President, Environmental Claims [email protected] Mark Russell Mobile +44 (0)7747 758789 Vice President, Cargo Claims [email protected] Underwriting Iain Laird Mobile +44 (0)7768 547401 Vice President, Area Manager, [email protected] America, Middle East and London Stephen Mulcahy Senior Underwriter Samira Hmam Underwriter Claims Ajaz Peermohamed Senior Manager Adrian Hodgson Senior Claims Executive Nigel Wright Senior Claims Executive Chris Connor Claims Executive Jennie Gibson Claims Executive Tina Lind Havdahl Claims Executive Keri Marner Claims Executive Benedicte Plé Claims Executive Misty Sung Claims Executive Rasmus Tideman Claims Executive, Lawyer Defence Claims Peter Newell Senior Manager Balvinder Ahluwalia Senior Lawyer Peter M. Chard Senior Lawyer Mobile +44 (0)7825 518447 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7766 303047 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7766 251390 Mobile +44 (0)7733 808051 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7747 758978 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7747 758956 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7795 843634 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7747 758845 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7786 915855 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7826 854156 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7901 536231 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7917 351450 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7881 921116 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 57 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7799 894670 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7990 591911 [email protected]

Alexandra Chatzimichailoglou Mobile +30 697 412 0812 Claims Executive, [email protected] Lawyer Sarah Hamon Mathiopoulou Mobile +30 693 683 5210 Lawyer [email protected] Dimitris Giginis Claims Executive Mobile +30 698 103 1386 [email protected]

Themis Ploumidakis Mobile +30 694 624 4965 Claims Executive, Lawyer [email protected] Lingard Limited, Bermuda Graham Everard Managing Director Jackie Stirling Corporate Lawyer DIARY Gard offices will be closed on the following dates: Arendal, Bergen, Oslo 1st, 9th,17th, 20th May London 6th, 27th May Gothenburg 1st, 9th,10th May, 6th, 7th, 21st June Helsinki 1st, 9th May, 21st June Hong Kong 1st, 17th May, 12th June, 1st July Tokyo/Imabari 3rd, 6th May, 15th July New York 27th May, 4th July Bermuda 24th May, 17th June Piraeus 1st, 2nd (from 1300 GMT), 3rd May, 24th June Mobile +1 (441) 330 3445 [email protected] Mobile +1 (441) 305 3445 [email protected]

Tadashi Sugimoto Managing Director Toshiyuki Kawana Manager John Martin Claims Director Louis Shepherd Lawyer

Mobile +81 (0)80 4142 9688 [email protected] Mobile +81 (0)90 6479 2544 [email protected] Mobile +81 (0)90 3095 2923 [email protected] Mobile +81 (0)90 4709 5174 [email protected]

Hélène-Laurence Courties Mobile +44 (0)7917 195810 Senior Lawyer [email protected]

Gard AS Postbox 789 Stoa NO-4809 Arendal Norway Phone: +47 37 01 91 00 [email protected] Gard AS Skipsbyggerhallen Solheimsgaten 11 NO-5058 Bergen Norway Phone: +47 37 01 91 00 [email protected] Gard AS Støperigata 2, Aker Brygge NO-0250 Oslo Norway Phone: +47 37 01 91 00 [email protected] Gard (UK) Limited 85 Gracechurch Street London EC3V 0AA United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0)20 7444 7200 [email protected] Gard (Greece) Ltd 2, A. Papanastassiou Avenue 185 34 Kastella, Piraeus Greece Phone: +30 210 413 8752 [email protected] Gard (North America) Inc. 40 Fulton Street, 16th Fl. New York NY 10038 U.S.A. Phone: +1 (212) 425 5100 [email protected]

Gard (Japan) K.K. (Tokyo office) Kawade Building, 5F 1-5-8 Nishi-Shinbashi Minato-ku Tokyo 105-0003 Japan Phone: +81 (0)3 3503 9291 [email protected] Gard (Japan) K.K. (Imabari office) Vogue 406 3-9-36 Higashimura Imabari-city Ehime 799-1506 Japan Phone: +81 898 35 3901 [email protected] Gard (Sweden) AB Våstra Hamngatan 5 SE-41117 Gothenburg Sweden Phone: +46 31 743 7130 [email protected] Gard (HK) Limited 35/F, The Centrium 60 Wyndham Street Central Hong Kong Phone: +852 2901 8688 [email protected] Oy Gard (Baltic) Ab Bulevardi 46 FIN-00120 Helsinki Finland Phone: +358 30 600 3400 [email protected]

Gard P. & I. (Bermuda) Ltd. Gard Marine & Energy Limited Lingard Limited Trott & Duncan Building 17A Brunswick Street Hamilton HM 10 Bermuda Phone: +1 (441) 292 6766 [email protected] CATASTROPHE TELEPHONE NUMBERS P&I: +47 90 52 41 00 Marine: +47 90 92 52 00 OUTSIDE OFFICE HOURS TELEPHONE NUMBERS Gard AS: +47 90 52 41 00 Gard (UK) Limited: +44 (0)7747 021 224 Gard (Greece) Ltd: +30 6936 600 603 Gard (North America) Inc: +1 (917) 856 6664 Gard (Japan) K.K (Tokyo): +81 (0)3 3503 9293 Gard (Japan) K.K. (Imabari): +81 (0)3 3503 9293 Gard (Sweden) AB: +46 31 743 71 48. Gard (HK) Limited: +852 94 61 63 61 Oy Gard (Baltic) Ab: +358 (0)50 402 7777

www.gard.no [email protected]

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close